Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

2020-11-17

Columbine and the Myth of the Juvenile Superpredator

Christopher M. Mosqueda
Brigham Young University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Engineering Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation

Mosqueda, Christopher M., "Columbine and the Myth of the Juvenile Superpredator" (2020). Theses and
Dissertations. 8716.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/8716

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please
contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
 

Columbine and the Myth of the Juvenile Superpredator

Christopher M. Mosqueda

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Educational Specialist

Melissa Ann Heath, Chair

Aaron P. Jackson
Robert Ridge

Department of Counseling Psychology and Special Education

Brigham Young University

Copyright © 2020 Christopher M. Mosqueda

All Rights Reserved

 

ABSTRACT

Columbine and the Myth of the Juvenile Superpredator

Christopher M. Mosqueda
Department of Counseling Psychology and Special Education, BYU
Educational Specialist

Mass media has great influence over its audience. When a sensational story hits the news
waves, the general public’s attention is instantly riveted to the television screen. News stories
that involve the deaths of innocent people often create a culture of fear, fuel false narratives, and
scatter misinformation. In fact, this culture of fear, coupled with misleading information, created
the myth of the juvenile superpredator, a phrase coined by DiIulio in the early 1990s. The
stereotyped superpredator was a homicidal, uncontrollable youth hiding within areas where
crime and violence are rare. In particular, this myth was propagated following the massacre at
Columbine High School in 1999. Across time, misinformation and false narratives served to
spotlight the perpetrators’ notoriety—their ultimate motivation for perpetrating this heinous
attack.

News media, law enforcement, and school administrators are in the unique position to
stop the spread of misinformation and prevent school shooters from gaining the fame they
desperately seek, a common motivation among school shooters and copycat perpetrators. This
study seeks to explore how the media portrayed the Columbine High School shooters and how it
fed into the myth of the juvenile superpredator. This study analyzed youth violence risk factors
in the wake of the Columbine High School Shooting to determine if news media was accurate in
their reporting. We wanted to determine if news coverage was a major influence on the public’s
perception of youth violence. These risk factors were scrutinized from television news coverage
from national news organizations. Results indicate that in the wake of school shootings, strong
considerations regarding ethical news reporting and clearer lines of communication between
school administrators and law enforcement officials may prevent misinformation from spreading
in the first place and may prevent school shooters from gaining notoriety in such aftermaths.
Additionally, curtailing the spread of misinformation may help communities prevent reactionary
policies that ultimately harm school students through overly punitive measures.

Keywords: school shootings, media coverage, Columbine school shooting, juvenile

superpredator, notoriety
 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Melissa Ann Heath. She has worked

tirelessly to help guide me through this entire process. Her immense wisdom and knowledge have been

indispensable from start to finish.

I would also thank my committee members, Dr. Aaron P. Jackson and Dr. Robert Ridge. Their

feedback and help have also been appreciated in producing and shaping this thesis. Their knowledge of

research helped to fine tune this study.

I send my heartfelt thanks to Carly Atchley and Cortland Watson. They were crucial to coding the

immense data that this research is foundational upon. Their input and constant support helped me get over

the finish line.

Lastly, I would like to thank my wife, Samantha. She went through this long journey with me and

provided countless hours of feedback.

 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER 1: Background and Introduction .................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 3

The Media’s Portrayal of Youth Violence .................................................................................. 4

Public’s Response to Violent News Media ................................................................................. 6

The Myth of the Juvenile Superpredator ..................................................................................... 8

Shooter Motivation.................................................................................................................... 11

Risk Factors of Youth Violence ................................................................................................ 11

Purpose of Study ....................................................................................................................... 12

Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER 3: Method................................................................................................................... 15

Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................................... 16

Coding Reliability ..................................................................................................................... 19

Validity of Data ......................................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 4: Results ................................................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER 5: Discussion.............................................................................................................. 24

Media Responsibility................................................................................................................. 26
 v

School Discipline ...................................................................................................................... 27

Spreading the Right Information ............................................................................................... 28

Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 29

Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 29

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 30

APPENDIX A: Coding Book ....................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX B: Media Content-Frame Analysis Flowchart ......................................................... 40

 vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Risk Factors of Youth Violence in Schools ...............................................................13

Table 2. Youth Violence Risk Factors Reported in Major Network Television News During

the First 48 Hours Following the Columbine High School Shooting ............................23 
 vii
 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Incidents by Year, Based on Publicly Available Data From 2010–Present ...............10 
 1
 

CHAPTER 1

Background and Introduction

“Virtually all the early news stories were infested with erroneous assumptions and

comically wrong conclusions. But the data is there.” —Dave Cullen (Cullen, 2010, p. 159)

On April 20th, 1999, two students from Columbine High School entered the building and

began shooting. It came on without warning and it would end just as horrific. The attack would

last less than an hour before the shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, took their own lives.

The media frenzy which followed was like none other up to that point. They tried to make sense

of what happened. They interviewed students as they ran out of the school. Crying and terrified,

these students were just as confused, trying to piece together their own shock and dismay.

However, a story started to develop from numerous unverified sources. No one knew

what was true, but it was reported and latched onto by the public instantaneously. How many

were killed? Who were the shooters? How did this happen? Could it have been stopped? These

were the questions that everyone across the nation was asking.

Rumors and false attributes were applied to the shooters. According to the media they

were victims getting revenge on those bullies who made their lives miserable. They were

outcasts who snapped suddenly. They were martyrs for their own cause. Unfortunately, only

these pieces were remembered and would be remembered by futures shooters.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold planned their attack years in advance. These perpetrators

were not outcasts. Everyone was their target that day, not jocks or bullies, as popularly claimed.

They wanted everyone to know who they were. Their motivations were to become infamous.

They wanted to be remembered and the media gave that to them by building false pedestals of
 2
 

mythological status (Cullen, 2010). The public is also to blame by taking in news at face value.

We now know better.

Mass media has great influence over its audience. When a sensational story hits the news

waves, the general public’s attention is instantly riveted to the television screen (Cramer, 1994).

News stories that involve the deaths of innocent people often create a culture of fear, fuel false

narratives, and scatter misinformation (Burns & Crawford, 1999). In fact, this culture of fear,

coupled with misleading information, created the myth of the juvenile superpredator. The

superpredator, a phrase coined by DiIulio in the early 1990s, was —a homicidal, uncontrollable

youth hiding within areas where crime and violence are rare (DiIulio, 1995b). In particular, this

myth was propagated following the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999. Across time,

misinformation and false narratives served to spotlight the perpetrators’ notoriety—their ultimate

motivation for perpetrating this heinous attack.

Identifying risk factors of youth violence in news media, following the Columbine High

School Massacre may help law enforcement, schools, and mass media in denying perpetrators

the notoriety they seek and help quell copycat shooters (Lankford & Madfis, 2018; Verlinden et

al., 2000). News media, law enforcement, and school administrators are in the unique position to

stop the spread of misinformation and prevent school shooters from gaining the fame they

desperately seek, a common motivation among school shooters and copycat perpetrators

(Lankford & Madfis, 2018; Young et al., 2019). This study seeks to explore how the media

portrayed the Columbine High School shooters and how it fed into the myth of the juvenile

superpredator.
 3
 

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

Entertainment in the United States is big business. Simply put, the more viewers a news

station attracts, the more money they bring in as the audience responds to network advertising.

As Cramer (1994) succinctly stated, “The real reason is profit” (p. 38). These profits soar when

audiences become glued to their television screens, especially when crimes do not fit neatly into

patterns most commonly seen within inner-cities and densely populated urban areas such as

“rival gangs, narcotics…or other previously recognized risk factors found in high-density urban

settings” (Verlinden et al., 2000, p. 3). Mass shootings are one such example of a crime that does

not fit neatly into these patterns. Making up less than 1% of all violent crimes in the US, mass

murders, including school shootings, are incredibly rare (Hurst, 2005). However, when they do

occur, they are highly publicized, focusing society’s attention to such events, and feeding the

perception that such acts commonly occur (Verlinden et al., 2000).

Another reason that such events are broadcast is because lesser crimes are not always

“newsworthy” (Cramer, 1994, p. 35). The media focuses less on events that do not capture the

public’s attention and where police have little evidence to go on in their investigations. These

smaller stories are often pushed to the side when larger stories catch the public’s attention. Even

though pure public interest warrants the covering of mass shootings, sensational stories and

profit drive media’s focus (Cramer, 1994). This is especially troublesome, as incidents involving

mass shootings have steadily become deadlier in recent years (Duwe, 2017).

For example, Americans were glued to their television screens in the immediate

aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre. It would be nearly two weeks for other

national news stories to push their way to the top of the news hour after Columbine (Cullen,
 4
 

2010). In the week following the incident, CNN had their “highest [television] ratings in their

history,” with the four major broadcast networks (CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS) dedicating over

forty televised news stories about the massacre (Cullen, 2010). On April 20, 1999 (the day of the

shooting) ABC’s evening news program, Nightly News, dedicated “40% of its time with

Columbine, and the next night CBS’s Evening News devoted…70% of its available time” to the

massacre in Littleton, Colorado (Consalvo, 2003, p. 32).

The Media’s Portrayal of Youth Violence

The media drives how youth violence is portrayed to the masses through the

“disproportionate influence in the creation of plausible organizational narrative after crisis”

(Mills & O’Connell, 2003, p. 323). Thus, it is important to comprehend how the media covers

school violence and how the media influences the nation’s conscience (Kupchik & Bracy, 2009).

Though not intentionally, during the 1990’s, the media created a distorted representation

of how we view youth violence in America. This distorted view led to stricter juvenile crime

laws and resulted in a school-to-prison paradigm of juvenile justice (Heitzeg, 2009). However,

measures to increase the punishment for youth, such as increasing school expulsion rates,

actually decrease school achievement and increase dropout rates for those who are over-

disciplined for minor offenses (American Psychological Association [APA], 2008; Rocque &

Snellings, 2018). It is especially important for school administrators to understand the ultimate

consequences when shifting from rehabilitative justice to punitive and exclusionary punishment

(Mallett, 2016). Over-reactive policies tend to emerge from the myth of unsafe schools, even

though public schools are safer today than they have been in the past decade (Mallett, 2016).

In fact, schools become safer as they provide positive supports for their students and

consider offenses within the proper context (Robers et al., 2012). Mallett (2016) further
 5
 

explained that the myth of violent youth in the 1990’s led to the overreaction in public policy,

such as zero tolerance policies which reinforced the school-to-prison model. In particular, the

school-to-prison pipeline continues to plague urban schools and targets minorities, as well as

those in lower socioeconomic classes (Kang-Brown et al., 2013).

Throughout the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the media helped create the caricature that

any adolescent from any background can “become a victimizer” instead of a victim (Glassner,

1999, p. 68). This was accomplished through carefully crafted news segments of sparse and

localized incidents of youth violence. By reporting these incidents time and again, the media

offered these stories of youth violence as evidence of juvenile crime waves over a period of

weeks and months following such events (Glassner, 1999). The constant reminder of these

incidents makes it difficult for the audience to forget, as these stories are repeated at the top of

every news hour. Furthermore, the media reminds the public of juveniles and their crimes when

they report on the anniversaries of violent incidents (Glassner, 1999).

News stories regarding youth violence “customarily contain two elements that together

guarantee the audience will sit up and shudder: vivid depictions of the young criminals and their

crimes, and numbers showing dramatic increases on some dimension or another” (Glassner,

1999, p. 70). Many adults have very little contact with youth violence or youth crime and must

rely on the experiences and words of experts in the field (Krisberg et al., 2009). Audiences are

put into a never-ending cycle of fear, anticipating their own children as future victims. The

media actively constructs meaning in their stories by integrating fragmented pieces of

information with detached events. Upon hearing these stories, the audience relies on the assumed

experts who make claims regarding youth violence and school shootings—often disregarding the

story’s accuracy (Kupchik & Bracy, 2009).

 6
 

Inaccurate information evolves into false narratives or myths. Narratives serve the

distinct purpose of explaining and providing solutions to challenges that society has difficulty

facing, in which “myths about crime and justice are no different” (Muschert, 2007, p. 352). In

the case of the Columbine High School massacre, for example, the common explanation of being

bullied as the perpetrators’ primary motivation is unfounded. There is no evidence that bullying

or any form of persecution were in fact the cause of the perpetrators’ rampage (Cullen, 2010).

Additionally, in aftermath of the Columbine Massacre, the perpetrators — Eric Harris

and Dylan Klebold — were “identified as a new brand of perpetrator: the suburban rampage

school shooter” (Muschert, 2007, p. 363). This falls into the pattern of mass media’s fascination

with the rise of a violent youth crime wave (Miller et al., 2006). The juvenile crime wave became

the new frame, or perspective, of focus for the media. The media often reports stories through a

frame of problems that society faces and must ultimately fix (Kupchik & Bracy, 2009). This

problem frame promotes a culture of anxiety and fear. The tragedy at Columbine High School

brought a growing problem of perceived youth violence into the national consciousness and

became the defining moment for the media and how they would contribute to the national

conversation about it.

Public’s Response to Violent News Media

Such problem events promote a culture of fear when experts falsely describe them as

epidemics (Verlinden et al., 2000). The promotion of the media solidifies this false narrative

when it reports such tragedies for the sake of salience. The constant fear of school shootings “has

extended beyond the poor, inner-city neighborhoods, reaching affluent suburbs, towns, and rural

areas” and induced moral panic into middle and upper-class neighborhoods (Burns & Crawford,

1999, p. 147). Moral panic is a term used to describe a “widespread public fear that evildoers
 7
 

[are] trying to harm…society” and occurs when there is a perceived threat to the order of society

by those seeking to commit evil acts (Burns & Crawford, 1999, p. 148). When television

audiences view a violent event in schools on their television screens, they fall into the false belief

that violence is on the rise in their own neighborhoods and schools (Hurst, 2005). Additionally,

Gerbner (2010) described this phenomenon of fear and anxiety induced by violent media

exposure as mean world syndrome, and he further postulated that those exposed to violent media

had this bias to believe that the world was more treacherous than it actually was.

Additionally, the masses’ opinions are often shaped by what they see in national news

programs, regardless of political affiliations, and are often “misinformed, but in many cases

exponentially misinformed, by the hyperbole that too often follows school shootings” (Brooks et

al., 2000, p. 30). For example, a day after the shooting at Columbine High School, on April 21st,

ABC broadcast a news segment entitled “Phenomenon of the Goth Movement.” This segment

falsely attributed the Goth movement and the influences of Goth culture (such as the music of

Marilyn Manson) to be one of the major driving forces corrupting youth, and, by extension, the

Columbine shooters.

Social media has similar effects on how people respond to violent news media.

Regardless of accuracy, social media has enabled news media to spread rapidly over a wide net,

making it difficult to track which news is fake and which news is real (Al-Rawi, 2019).

Additionally, social media magnifies the problem of fake news and fast-moving

misinformation. In fact, Fake News, defined as news that is reported as inaccurate, unreliable, or

ripe with misinformation, or all of the above, often caused consumers to feel fear and disgust

when presented with a story on a single event (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Vosoughi et al. (2018)

also reported that when presented with the same story on the event, factual and accurate
 8
 

reporting induced audiences with feelings of “joy and trust” (p. 1146). Social media is not held to

the same ethical standards of traditional news reporting, where anyone can be contributor and

consumer, which makes is even more difficult to track the spread of misinformation (DeVos et

al., 2018). DeVos et al. (2018) further explained that it is increasingly difficult to balance

accurate information with ongoing events, where parents are seeking information about their

children, and the “real danger [of] saturated coverage of mass killings may instigate future

violence” (p. 59).

The Myth of the Juvenile Superpredator

This epidemic of fear drew attention to the rise of the juvenile superpredator: a “radically

impulsive, brutally remorseless individual driven to commit acts of ruthless violence with full

awareness of and indifference to the wrongfulness and consequences of such behavior”

(Bazelon, 2000, p. 165). The threat of the superpredator was promoted by news media in 1990’s

with experts commenting on the above-mentioned growth of a juvenile crime wave (DiIulio,

1995a, 1995b; Miller et al., 2006). Scarce and localized incidents of youth violence were “used

to craft the plotlines of popular talk shows, prime-time news programs, and television dramas”

(Bazelon, 2000, p. 166). These images seep back into the national consciousness to “influence

public opinion in ‘a feedback loop of reciprocal mythmaking,’ which continued to enhance the

perceived threat of youth violence” (Bazelon, 2000, p. 165–166).

The media’s constant reporting on youth crime without proper context of accurate data

solidified the public’s growing perceptions of the frequency of youth violence and came to

understand that the youth were at risk (Krisberg et al., 2009). Statistics outside of context help

the public to reach conclusions not based in fact. Fragmented pieces of information with out-of-

context events created a false narrative of superpredators on the rise (Kupchik & Bracy, 2009).
 9
 

When the news is selective about what to include in their reporting, it creates many false pictures

that can be interpreted in countless ways, which convinces the public of a “higher frequency and

severity of crime than is actually the case” (Krisberg et al., 2009, p. 27).

In reality, the impending doom of a youth crime wave was nothing but fiction, as several

academics assumed that the short and steady rise of youth violence in the early 1990’s would

continue to grow by linking crime rates and demographics haphazardly (Krisberg et al., 2009;

Snyder & Sickmund, 2000). The media grabbed onto their conclusions and focused on how small

upticks in youth crime statistics constituted “crime emergencies” that had to be dealt with, and

they were in the habit of highlighting “the more sensationalist aspects of stories rather than

context” (Krisberg et al., 2009, p. 7).

Even though youth violence (in and out of schools) is on the decline, parents’ fears

continued to grow, and parents are especially worried for the safety of their children in their

schools (Brooks et al., 2000). Violence in schools diminished by half from 1992 to 2002, a

downward trend that continued over the next decade (Fox & Fridel, 2018; Hurst, 2005).

However, one study indicated that even though violence occurring in schools has been declining

since 1992, there has been a rise in mass school shootings in the United States that are becoming

deadlier than previous decades (Katsiyannis et al., 2018). It should be noted however, students

are more likely to experience theft while at school than they are to experience violent crimes

(Hurst, 2005). However, since 2010, there has been an increase in school shootings in the United

States (see Figure 1), with especially high numbers of victims during 2018 and 2019.
 10
 

Figure 1

Incidents by Year, Based on Publicly Available Data From 2010–Present

School Shootings by Year

Based on publicly available data from 2010-present
140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Note. This figure is based on information provided by Riedman & O’Neill (2020),

posted on the following Internet site: [https://www.chds.us/ssdb/charts-graphs/].

Nevertheless, violent crimes are not often reported to local police, and most data

regarding school violence is several years old, thus making it difficult to make conclusions on

current trends (Hurst, 2005). Any discussion must then be approached with great caution. In the

years following the tragedy at Columbine High School, 86% of school resource officers reported

that crimes go underreported, often because of the influence of local politics trying to create a

positive image of their schools (Hurst, 2005). Hurst (2005) reported that three out of four

resource officers said they have confiscated a weapon from a student within the past year.

Generally, school violence is declining, but school administrators must recognize that serious

problems may be hiding in plain sight.

 11
 

Shooter Motivation

The media’s reporting on mass shooters, particularly school shooters, has the unfortunate

side effect of rewarding the perpetrator’s offenses by giving them the fame and attention they

seek, which further incentivizes future school shooters looking for notoriety (Lankford &

Madfis, 2018). Lankford and Madfis (2018) also reported and confirmed that a majority of these

individuals come to the realization that the more people they murder the more attention and fame

they will receive from the media. Additionally, Lankford and Madfis name three consequences

when the media reports on school shootings: it gives the shooters the attention they want, it

increases competition between other mass shooters to maximize victims, and it leads to copycat

effects. This was partially seen when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold daydreamed that their

actions would draw the attention of Hollywood’s top directors and “believed that movies would

be made about their lives, which turned out to be true” (Lankford & Madfis, 2018, p. 262).

Risk Factors of Youth Violence

It is equally important to understand the underlying risk factors of youth violence in order

to prevent the spread of fear and misinformation that paints alternative pictures of youth

criminals, which, when coupled with media induced fear, gave rise to the superpredator myth

(Lankford & Madfis, 2018; Verlinden et al., 2000). In fact, numerous studies have indicated that

youth violence is a product of several factors, including “bad parenting, violent popular culture,

mental illness, unhealthy school climates, and availability of firearms have all been targets of

blame” (National Consortium on Violence Research, 1998). Verlinden et al. (2000) considered

these risk factors first identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI; Band & Harpold,

1999); the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP; Dwyer et al., 1998); the

National School Safety Center (NSSC; Stephens, 1998); and APA (1999).
 12
 

These risk factors are listed in Table 1 (adapted from Verlinden et al., 2000). It should be

noted that these risk factors have remained stable over time, especially in the past three decades,

as more research has studied youth violence trends (Bushman et al., 2018). One assessment, the

Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), is one such popular tool that

assesses these youth violence risk factors (listed in Table 1) in adolescents between the ages of

12–18. The SAVRY exhibited strong predictive validity (ranging from .74 to .89) for violence

recidivism in a sample of 121 youth in a one-year follow-up (Meyers & Schmidt, 2008).

Purpose of Study

The relationship with violent criminals and the media is not new. This relationship has

been recorded in popular culture and has been studied by countless scientists seeking to

understand these criminals’ motivations. The 19th century saw Jack the Ripper communicate

with law enforcement as he taunted them during his short crime spree. Other serial killers, such

as the Zodiac Killer and the BTK (bind, torture, kill) Strangler, communicated with police and

boasted of their accomplishments while detailing their crimes (Morford & Ferguson, 2018;

Wenzl et al., 2009). Law enforcement have relied on these killers’ communiqués to build

psychological profiles on these perpetrators and to understand their motivations. It is equally

important to understand how the media reports on youth offenders for similar reasons (Cramer,

1994). Doing so may help the media recognize ways that they can change their reporting to

prevent this notoriety from being gained in the first place, and to prevent the spread of fear. It

may also help school administrators determine the best way to get information to law

enforcement officials and the public without the unfortunate side effect of misinformation in the

aftermath of a school schooling, which feeds into the mythmaking of perpetrators as

superpredators.
 13
 

Table 1

Risk Factors of Youth Violence in Schools

Individual Family School/Peers Societal/Environmental

Brought a Weapon to Poor Monitoring Antisocial or Violent Poverty or Low
School Peer Group Socioeconomic Status
Exposure to Family
Has Made a Detailed Violence Low School Exposure to Violent
Plan to Attack or Hurt Commitment or Media
Others Antisocial or Violent Achievement
Parents Exposure to Violent
Suicidal Academic Failure Cultural Norms
Ideation/Attempts or Child Neglect and/or
Completions Abuse Gang Involvement Easy Access to Weapons

Animal Cruelty Parental Substance Social Isolation

Abuse
Violent Drawings or Marital Conflict Peer Rejection
Writings
Divorce Feels Bullied or
Impulsivity and/or Persecuted
Hyperactivity Family Conflict

Psychiatric/Medical
Conditions

History of Aggression

Substance Abuse

Attitudes/Beliefs

Narcissism

Criminal Record

Motive to Hurt Others

Note. The information in Table 1 is adapted from NASP, Dwyer et al. (1998); NSSC, Stephens

(1998); FBI, Band & Harpold (1999), Verlinden et al. (2000), and Meyers & Schmidt (2008).

Reactionary policies in response to media induced hysteria (following school shootings

and youth crime) gave rise to the school-to-prison paradigm (Heitzeg, 2009; Rocque & Snelling,

2018). This paradigm does more harm than good to the school environment and understanding

how to prevent this spread of fear through media misinformation may actually make schools
 14
 

safer as these institutions move towards rehabilitative care as opposed to punitive policies

(Mallett, 2016).

Research Questions

This case study explores how the media reported the Columbine High School shooting

and how it built upon the myth of the juvenile superpredator. In this study, we investigated the

major news outlets’ portrayal of the Columbine School Shooting, particularly the news portrayal

of the perpetrators and the information offered about the specific youth risk factors associated

with violence. Our purpose was to gather information that would assist us in answering the

following research questions:

1. How did the major media outlets portray the Columbine High School shooters?

a. Specifically, in regard to the Columbine High School massacre, what type of

youth risk factors were or were not reported by the media?

b. When portraying the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, which

major risk factors received the majority of media focus?

 15
 

CHAPTER 3

Method

Media frame analysis (MFA) is the primary method of research in this study and will be

supported by other methods of content analysis which we combined and have called Media

Content-Frame Analysis (MCFA; Giles & Shaw, 2009). A media frame is the perspective in

which a story is told or how the media makes sense of a certain event (Giles & Shaw, 2009).

MFA is “a formal procedure for conducting analyses of (primarily news) media texts” and is

further defined through its reliance on incorporating scientific methods from the social sciences

(Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 375). Specifically, we adopted and adapted other methods primarily put

forth by Macnamara (2005) and Neuendorf (2016), with additional methods described by Riffe et

al. (2019).

MFA adopts features that are relevant to psychology, such as “narrative and

characterization,” along with the story itself (Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 375; Pavelka, 2014). While

there is no standard in media frame analysis, Giles and Shaw (2009) provided a model of

framing that adopts “techniques from other fields…using qualitative [and quantitative] methods”

(p. 383). They also argue that media has a psychological impact on human behavior, and there is

a great need to adopt a more systematic approach to MFA, due to the lack of research specific to

news media (Giles & Shaw, 2009). Furthermore, Giles and Shaw (2009) argue that:

[It is] essential to incorporate a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods in a

framing analysis. We conceive MFA as comprising two broad analyses: a (largely

quantitative) macroanalysis of a broad data set, sampled carefully and purposefully from

a specified range of media sources; and a qualitative microanalysis of selected materials,

 16
 

perhaps to illustrate one of the broader framing processes identified in the macroanalysis.

(p. 383)

Data Collection and Analysis

The key, and beginning, step of analyzing news media is the construction of a Code Book

or Coding Form, which contains the variables under study and provides the primary framework

for the coding of transcripts, as well as supporting data analysis (Macnamara, 2005; Neuendorf,

2016). In short, a Code Book is the instrument that allows researchers to code and analyze data.

Coding is the process of “transcribing, recording, categorizing, or interpreting of…data…so that

they can be compared and analyzed (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 220).

In building this Code Book, we began by searching for “media coverage [of the

Columbine School Shooting]... guided by code words” through a database that compiles news

coverage (Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 383). In this case, news media coverage was guided by

“Columbine” as the code word through the database LexisNexis, which compiles business, legal,

and news media transcripts.

The next step in organizing the Code Book and the data for MFA is relating each

transcript within our analysis “to a specific event that can be regarded as the source or origin of

the story...[which] may be a specific incident, like a murder....[or] a statement by a senior figure”

(Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 384). The end point was identified as 48 hours after the school shooting

occurred: April 22, 1999.

Furthermore, Giles and Shaw (2009) put forth that the macroanalysis process requires the

selection of relevant material, like that of a literature review. It is not necessary, nor

recommended, to “incorporate all material extracted through the search into a meaningful

analysis” (Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 384). Using “Columbine” as the code word resulted in well
 17
 

over 10,000 news media transcripts. We decided to narrow down search results along a

timeframe. Specially, we looked at the first 48 hours following the massacre at Columbine High

School. This timeframe was chosen as television news coverage of the tragedy peaked on April

22, 1999 (Muschert, 2007). It also coincides with our origin point. MFA then calls for the

identification of the audience (the reader or viewer).

Subsequent screening of media transcripts was accomplished by narrowing down search

results by the major television networks at the time of the event (ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC).

We wanted to look at national news sources due to salience of coverage and the wide net it casts

over large populations. Thus, our audience is the US nation, and, by extension, those individuals

who, in the future, will be influenced to commit their own acts of school violence, specifically

school shootings.

Breaking down the data into categories is a key step in the analytical procedure, often

seen in MFA (Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 385). Identifying categories from our results tied directly

to the next step postulated by Giles and Shaw (2009) for media frame analysis: identifying

character(s).

Character analysis in news media is “an important feature of MFA” because of the

interest that researchers often have in psychological studies (Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 385). As

part of the macroanalytic process, the choosing of characters is done so by “identifying key

individuals who recur frequently in the articles” (Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 385). In our study, we

identified Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as our main characters because they were the

perpetrators of the shooting. In order to define their characteristics, we categorized and organized

by thematic risk factors of youth offenders, originally compiled by Verlinden et al. (2000).
 18
 

In this study, we categorized media transcripts based on the identified youth violence risk

factors. We searched for the risk factors within news transcripts and considered the media’s

portrayal of the two Columbine perpetrators. By investigating the categorized risk factors, we are

able to address our research questions. Categories were independently analyzed by four

individuals trained in coding techniques and then finalized as the group discussed common

themes that were portrayed within the categories. Additionally, secondary characters were also

identified, namely the victims of the massacre, along with the community and nation as a whole.

The finished Code Book was created in an Excel spreadsheet and it coded whether or not

the transcribed news article mentions a certain youth violence risk factor, along with the other

categories we decided to include, which was based on our discussion on common themes (e.g.,

reactions from the community, whether or not the article talks about the victims). An analogue

version of this Code Book is included in Appendix A.

We chose to code data without the use of computer software designed specifically for

coding textual data because “computers cannot consider the context of content, they only view

the text which can result in narrow incomplete interpretations” (Macnamara, 2005, p. 8).

Macnamara (2005) argues that the actual methodology is more important (e.g., training coders to

analyze data according to pre-established criteria). Excel allowed us to capitalize on the ease-of-

use interface of the program itself and allows us to “leave [our] files open on a screen beside the

medium displaying [our] content…and code more quickly” (Neuendorf, 2016, p. 227). The Excel

program also allowed us to make “intercoder reliability checks and subsequent data analysis

easier since the data are already in the appropriate format” (Neuendorf, 2016, p. 227).
 19
 

Coding Reliability

Reliability within media frame and content analysis relies on the “function of coders’

skill, insight, and experience, [as well as the] clarity of the categories…[and] limited to

improving coders, categories, or both” (Holsti, 1969, p. 135). In effort to increase reliability we

recruited more than two coders and coded independently of one another as suggested by

Macnamara (2005). As stated above, the team of coders consisted of four individuals: one

university professor and three school psychology graduate students, who were all trained in

coding methodologies. Macnamara (2005) lays out strategies to boost agreement and co-

variation to establish intercoder reliability:

1. Pre-Coding Training to help coders become familiar with the variables/categories,

and to clarify/operationally define variables (e.g., youth violence risk factors)

2. Pilot Coding with Overlapping Articles (test coding at least 10% of identical articles

independently)

3. Revision of Code Book to ensure coding categories are clear and operationally

defined

4. Retrain coders if required

Before training began, all 265 transcribed news articles were randomly assigned to each

team member. Training consisted of one-hour sessions held weekly over the course of three

months as we “work[ed] together, find[ing] out whether [we] can agree on coding

variables…and revis[ing] the codebook/coding form as needed” (Macnamara, 2005, p. 20). To

establish intercoder reliability we randomly selected 33 identical articles (12.5% of total articles)

to code independently of one another and met back together for reliability checks.
 20
 

One of the main issues of content analysis is the difficulty in defining an “acceptable

level of reliability…for which there is no single solution (Holsti, 1969, p. 142). However, Both

Krippendorff (2004) and Macnamara (2005) report that there are a few measures of reliability

that researchers can utilize and rely on when calculating reliability figures. Macnamara (2005)

states that there are several “statistical formulae [that] have been developed for measuring

intercoder reliability,” including a basic percent agreement (p. 10).

In our case, we chose this basic assessment, as it was the easiest to compute within the

Excel spreadsheet in the absence of available specialized statistical software. Our intercoder

reliability for the pilot coding phase of our sample articles resulted in 98.1% (0.98) agreement

among the 33 identical articles. Macnamara (2005) notes that “reliability coefficients of 0.80 or

greater are acceptable to all and 0.75 is acceptable in most situations” (p. 12).

Validity of Data

Validity within content analysis “is usually established through the informal judgement

of the investigator” as they decide whether or not their methodological process (Appendix B) is

comprehensive enough to form generalizations, which are more subjective within media content

analysis than other social sciences (Holsti, 1969, p. 143; Macnamara, 2005). In other words,

content analysis relies on face validity, or the “common truth” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 313). In

fact, content analysis is rooted in face validity because it is “concerned with [the] reading of

texts, with what symbols mean, and with how images are seen…in the shared culture in which

interpretations are made, which is difficult to measure but often highly reliable at a particular

time” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 314). Face validity is also important within the realm of content

analysis because it is the “gatekeeper of all other kinds of validity…[though] it is difficult to

explain how [it] works…it is [still] omnipresent” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 314).

 21
 

The stability of identified youth violence risk factors over several decades is also well

established (Armstead et al., 2018; Dwyer et al., 1998; Meyers & Schmidt, 2008). For our

research, this consistency helps establish the face validity of these youth violence risk factors

(Bushman et al., 2018).

MFA also demands the linking of media transcript together to form generalizations, both

explicit and implicit, that may be related to ongoing phenomena, such as school shootings (Giles

& Shaw, 2000). Validity in content analysis is subsequently accomplished through an

understanding of our research objectives (or research questions) and a prior knowledge of the

content under study (Macnamara, 2005). Generalizations within media content analysis and

MFA become “media templates,” which are “long-running stories that have been given an almost

mythical status by both media sources and their audiences” (Giles & Shaw, 2009, p. 389). This

analysis of MFA and media templates allowed researchers to describe how the media portrays a

traumatic and highly publicized incident, in this case the Columbine High School shooting.
 22
 

CHAPTER 4

Results

In total, 265 transcribed news articles were reviewed. Each of the percentages in the

specific subcategories of coding are based on the 265 articles that were reviewed. Table 2 shows

the percentage and number of articles that mentioned a specific subcategory. In regard to youth

violence risk factors, most of the media attention was focused on individual risk factors. The

majority of articles (81.1%; n=215) explicitly mentioned the perpetrators had Brought a Weapon

to School. This subcategory dominated the largest portion of articles (n=215) that made mention

of youth violence risk factors. This was followed by Made a Detailed Plan to Attack (42.3%,

n=112) and Gang Involvement (37.4%, n=99).

Besides the above mention subcategories, the other risk factors of youth violence that

were mentioned most by news media within the Individual Risk category was perpetrator

Attitudes/Beliefs and Motive for Attack with 26.4% (n =70) and 28.7% (n =76), respectively.

Suicidal Ideation and Violent Drawings were also mentioned at an increased rate at 30.2% (n

=80) and 15.8% (n =42) respectively. Motive for Attack was mentioned 28.7% (n =76) by the

various media outlets in this study.

There was very little mentioned in regard to the Family Risk category, with the

subcategory Insufficient Monitoring/Supervision dominating that category overall at 4.2%

(N=11). Family Conflict and Child Neglect/Abuse were mentioned 1.1% (n =3) each. The

remaining subcategories were not mentioned in any article. Gang Involvement was followed by

Social Isolation/Peer Rejection at (24.9%; n=66) and Feels Persecuted or Bullied (14.7%; n =39)

within the School/Peer Category. About a fifth of total articles within this study made mention of

the perpetrators Easy Access to Weapons within 24.9% (n =66). Twenty-one-point five percent
 23
 

(n =57) of total articles mentioned that perpetrators had been Exposed to Violent Media. Only

6.4% (n =17) of articles mentioned the perpetrators’ Low Socio-Economic Status.

Table 2

Youth Violence Risk Factorsa Reported in Major Network Television News During the First 48 Hours
Following the Columbine High School Shooting (N =265)

n Percentage*
Individual Violence Risk Factors 231b 87.2
Brought a weapon to school 215 81.1
Made a detailed plan to attack/hurt others 112 42.3
Suicidal ideation/attempts/completion 80 30.2
Animal cruelty 1 .4
Violent drawings/writing (including online drawings/writings) 42 15.8
Medical or physical condition 1 .4
Impulsivity/hyperactivity 1 .4
Psychological/psychiatric conditions 7 2.6
History of aggression/difficult temperament/history of threatening others 29 10.9
Substance abuse 4 1.5
Attitudes/beliefs 70 26.4
Criminal record/discipline problems 24 9.1
Motive for attack 76 28.7
Gender 154 58.1
Age 39 14.7
Race 4 1.5

Family Risk Factors 15b 5.7

Insufficient monitoring/supervision 11 4.2
Exposure to family violence/antisocial or violent parents 1 .4
Child abuse/neglect 4 1.5
Parental substance abuse 0 0.0
Marital conflict and/or divorce 0 0.0
Family conflict 3 1.1

Peers/School Risk Factors 117b 44.2

Antisocial/violent peer group 10 3.8
Low school commitment or achievement/academic failure 4 1.5
Gang involvement 99 37.4
Social isolation/peer rejection 66 24.9
Feels bullied or persecuted 39 14.7

Socio Environmental Risk Factors 105b 39.6

Socioeconomic status 17 6.4
Exposure to violent media /violent culture 57 21.5
Easy access to weapons 66 24.9
Note. Percentages are based on 265 transcribed television news articles.
a
Youth violence risk factors align with information provided by Band & Harpold (1999); Dwyer
et al. (1998); Meyers & Schmidt (2008); Stephens (1998); and Verlinden et al. (2000).
b
Because articles may have mentioned numerous subcategories, the sum of the numbers in the
subcategories do not add up to the number in the major category.
 24
 

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

The primary reason for choosing the Columbine High School massacre as the focus of

this research, instead of choosing a more recent shooting like the Sandy Hook or Marjory

Stoneman Douglas shootings, is because Columbine has become a cultural watershed as it was,

at the time, the most viewed and most covered news coverage in the 1990’s after the O. J.

Simpson chase. The spotlight on and continuing interest regarding this particular school shooting

is because, at the time, this was the deadliest school shooting (Larkin, 2009). Larkin (2009) also

reports that the Columbine High School massacre took an important place in history because

subsequent school shooters directly referred to Columbine and expressed the desire to outshine

the Columbine shooting. Additionally, the Columbine perpetrators were “media-savvy,” posting

their darkest thoughts, expressing their motives, and even journaling the plan for their attack

online (Larkin, 2009, p. 1311). Additionally, the Columbine High School massacre has a unique

place in the national conscience because it forced the issue of school shootings to the top of

every news hour and made headline news on the front page of every newspaper (DeFoster,

2010).

A false narrative soon developed in the immediate wake of the Columbine High School

massacre, one that was promoted by the media. The results of this study’s media frame content

analysis clearly demonstrate the emerging narrative. The media’s focus on the perpetrators’

violent risks factors (Brought a Weapon to School, Made a Detailed Plan to Attack, Motives,

Social Isolation, Gang Involvement) bolstered the mythmaking status of Columbine, as

inaccurate information spread quickly by news organizations before the perpetrators’ bodies

were even found (Cullen, 2010). To the general public, the perpetrators were rampage killers
 25
 

with a motive to kill, hiding in plain sight, carefully planning and preparing their attack (Cullen,

2010). In fact, many of the assumptions reported by the media about Eric Harris and Dylan

Klebold (specifically their motives, gang affiliations, and social isolation) were wrong. In

Cullen’s (2010) Columbine, the most extensive history of the massacre, notes that Eric Harris

and Dylan Klebold had no affiliation with the Trench Coat Mafia, which proved to be a non-

violent school social group with no gang ties. Additionally, Cullen (2010), who was a journalist

at the time of the massacre, reported that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not socially

isolated or bullied. They had many friends, worked together at the same job, and even had

girlfriends whom they went to school dances (Cullen, 2010). The revenge motivation (aimed at

bullies and jocks) promoted by the media fell flat. By most accounts, school teachers considered

both perpetrators as good students who did well in school (Cullen, 2010). Besides a minor

criminal offense a few years before the massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were well-

behaved according to Cullen (2010).

Regardless of motivations, the spread of misinformation by the media created fear in the

general public and gave rise to myth that distorted the perpetrators in juvenile and violent

superpredators (Krisberg et al., 2009). Public policy reacted to this unfounded fear through

punitive measures in the form of school-to-prison pipelines, which unjustly treated students for

minor offenses, which harms the school environment as school commitment decreases (Heitzeg,

2009).

Schools are in the unique position to stop the spread of misinformation by working

closely with law enforcement in the immediate wake of tragedies (Young et al., 2019). Young et

al. (2019) encouraged schools and law enforcement to work closely together in deciding what

information should be shared and how it should be given to the general public and media outlets.
 26
 

Properly sharing information should “ensure responsive engagement and effective online

responses, in real time, and continually monitor, evaluate, and engage in ongoing listening to

ensure appropriate and effective response” (Young et al., 2019, p. 39).

Schools are also in the position to support those students who may pose a safety risk to

themselves and others. Although youth violence risk factors have remained stable across time, it

should be further noted, that there is currently no “single instrument [that] has been validated for

use in risk assessment for serious juvenile violence…[and] there is no single psychological

profile or assessment method that has received wide support” (Bushman et al., 2018; Verlinden,

et al., 2000, p. 47). However, a comprehensive approach that includes “a combination of clinical

and empirical data…[as well as] interviews with parents, teachers, others acquainted with the

child, and with the child is likely to provide the most complete information about pertinent risk

factors” (Verlinden et al., 2000, p. 47). School psychologists are in the position to help schools

assess these students and create proper supports for them (Modzeleski & Randazzo, 2018).

Media Responsibility

In 2016, an American Psychological Association’s panel revealed “the prevalence of

mass shootings has risen in relation to the mass media coverage of them and the proliferation of

social media sites that tend to glorify the shooters and downplay the victims” (Johnston & Joy,

2016). One of the primary media guidelines set forth by DeVos et al. (2018) is for media’s

reporting to stop focusing on commentary surrounding an event because it is hard to verify

accurate details and easy to misinterpret and misrepresent. Instead, media should report only on

verifiable facts while reducing commentary on related events, such as “names, faces, and

personal stories of those who perpetrated the acts of violence” (DeVos et al., 2018, p. 63). Our

analysis showed that media focused on more sensational aspects of the perpetrators, such as gang
 27
 

involvement and their access to weapons. Commenting on the perpetrator’s involvement in

gangs and other forms of violence only serves to raise the perpetrators’ myth-making status.

In recent years, media has adopted the guidelines set forth by the “No Notoriety

Campaign” which encourages news outlets from “not using shooters’ names or photos, but

instead focusing on facts and victims” (DeVos et al., 2018, p. 13). About a third (29.06%, n=77)

of the transcripts in our analysis mentioned the perpetrators by name. Law enforcement should

also consider adopting guidelines from the “No Notoriety Campaign” when reporting to the

media on the facts from school shootings.

School Discipline

The coverage of the Columbine High School massacre brought school safety to the

forefront of the public arena, where policies were influenced by mass media coverage of the

horrific event, which would eventually lead to over-disciplinary policies to prevent school

violence (Mayer & Jimerson, 2019). Mayer and Jimerson (2019) found that “the failure of

schools to appropriately discipline disruptive students has consequences for overall student

achievement” (p. 70). In fact, research has shown that “arresting a student leads [can lead] to

lower standardized test scores, a higher probability that the student will not graduate from high

school, and a higher likelihood of future involvement in the justice system” (Nance, 2016, p.

321).

The negative effects of incarcerating juveniles are well documented in the research

(Nance, 2016). Furthermore, the school-to-prison pipeline often leads juveniles to face

maladjustments in attitudes, behaviors, employment, housing opportunities, mental health

concerns, low school engagement, and future involvement with the criminal justice system,
 28
 

which has many overlaps with our current understanding of risk factors involving youth (Nance,

2016).

When students do not meet standards of school decorum they are over-disciplined “by

suspending, expelling, or referring them to law enforcement for offenses that could be handled in

alternative ways aimed at keeping them in school,” which often increases their involvement with

the school-to-prison pipeline. For this reason, it is important to implement changes to the school

environment that promote student well-being, as positive school settings are “associated with

reduced [involvement in] violence” (Lindstrom-Johnson et al., 2017, p. 180).

Spreading the Right Information

In 2018, The Federal Commission on School Safety outlined guidelines when sharing

information in the wake of tragedies, which included information for schools and law

enforcement agencies (DeVos et al., 2018):

a. Critical personnel (e.g., law enforcement, school administrators, and communities)

who respond to school shootings must determine their response plan in the wake of

crises. These guidelines may help these teams report information to the community:

 Who will talk to the press,

 What information will be shared, while taking regard for community safety,

 How this information will be shared, and

 When this information will be released (usually after families of the victims

have been notified.

b. Schools should work closely with law enforcement and community leaders in

developing their media response plans.

 29

c. Additionally, schools should work closely with law enforcement and local

government leaders in developing their media response plans, and vice versa.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this analysis was the extensive time required to code the

transcripts from the media outlets in the immediate aftermath of the Columbine High School

massacre. For this reason, we decided to focus on only the largest media outlets at the time and

the first 48 hours following the event. Additionally, we had no comparison group for this study.

In other words, the accuracy of the news reporting and the content of the news reporting may or

may not be typical of the reporting that covers such events.

Another drawback is the nature of this retrospective study and the possibility of inherent

bias when investigating past events. Likewise gathering past data about news following a school

shooting is challenging, due to the uneven news coverage of school shootings (Schildkraut et al.,

2018).

Conclusion

As far as we can discern, this is the first time that media-frame analysis and content

analysis have been utilized to identify youth violence risk factors in media related to a school

shooting. This new approach has yet to studied further in other news media contexts and with

other topics related to school-based mental health issues. The manner in which media present

school shootings and youth violence has yet to be thoroughly studied in its relationship to

subsequent school safety measures, school discipline policies, and the long term negative

repercussions of policies promulgated from school shootings (APA, 2008; DeVos et al., 2018;

Heitzeg, 2009; Muschert, 2019; Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013).

 30

REFERENCES

Al-Rawi, A. (2019). Viral news on social media. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 63–79. doi:

10.1080/21670811.2017.1387062

American Psychological Association. (1999). Warning signs of youth violence. Bulletins for

families. https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/warning-signs.

American Psychological Association. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the

schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. A report by the American

Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Policy Task Force. APA, 63(9), 852–862. doi:

10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852

Armstead, T. L., Wilkins, N., & Doreson, A. (2018). Indicators for evaluating community-and

societal-level risk and protective factors for violence prevention: Findings from a review

of the literature. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(1), S42–S50.

doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000681

Band, S., & Harpold, J. (1999). School violence: Lessons learned. FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, 68(9), 9–16. doi: 10.1037/e313172004-003

Bazelon, L. A. (2000). Exploding the superpredator myth: Why infancy is the preadolescent's

best defense in juvenile court. New York University Law Review, 75(1), 159–198.

Brooks, K., Schiraldi, V., & Zeidenberg, J. (2000). School house hype: Two years later. Justice

Policy Institute.

Burns, R., & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for

moral panic. Crime, Law and Social Change, 32(2), 147–168.

Bushman, B. J., Coyne, S. M., Anderson, C. A., Björkqvist, K., Boxer, P., Dodge, K. A., Dubow,

E., Farrington, D. P., Gentile, D. A., Huesmann, L. R., Lansford, J. E., Novaco, R. W.,
 31
 

Ostrov, J. M., Underwood, M. K., Warburton, W. A., & Ybarra, M.(2018). Risk factors

for youth violence: Youth Violence Commission, International Society for Research on

Aggression (ISRA). Aggressive Behavior, 44(4), 331–336. doi: 10.1002/ab.21766

Consalvo, M. (2003). The monsters next door: Media constructions of boys and masculinity.

Feminist Media Studies, 3(1), 27–46. doi: 10.1080/1468077032000080112

Cramer, C. E. (1994). Ethical problems of mass murder coverage in the mass media. Journal of

Mass Media Ethics, 9(1), 26–42. doi: 10.1207/s15327728jmme0901_3

Cullen, D. (2010). Columbine. Twelve.

DeFoster, R. (2010). American gun culture, school shootings, and a “frontier mentality:” An

ideological analysis of British editorial pages in the decade after Columbine.

Communication, Culture, & Critique, 3(4), 466–484. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-

9137.2010.01081.x

DeVos, B., Nielsen, K. M., & Azar, A. M. (2018, December 18). Final report of the Federal

Commission on School Safety. Presented to the President of the United States. United

States Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/documents/school-safety/school-

safety-report.pdf

DiIulio, J. (1995a). Arresting ideas: Tougher law enforcement is driving down urban crime.

Policy Review, 74(Fall), 12–16.

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A17634837/AONE?u=byuprovo&sid=AONE&xid=3cfe8

99a

DiIulio, J. (1995b). The coming of the super-predators. The Weekly Standard, 1(11), 23–30.

Dwyer, K., Osher, D., & Warger, C. (1998). Early warning, timely response: A guide to safe

schools. United States Department of Education.

 32
 

Duwe, G. (2017). Mass shootings are getting deadlier, not more frequent. Politico Magazine.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-

frequent-research-215678

Fox, J. A., & Fridel, E. E. (2018). The menace of school shootings in America: Panic and

overresponse. In H. Shapiro (Ed.), The Wiley handbook on violence in education: Forms,

factors, and preventions (pp. 15–35). Wiley Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118966709.ch1

Gerbner, G. (2010). The mean world syndrome: Media violence & the cultivation of fear [Film].

Media Education Foundation.

Giles, D. C., & Shaw, R. L. (2009). The psychology of news influence and the development of

media framing analysis. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 375–393. doi:

10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00180.x

Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid for the wrong things. Basic

Books.

Heitzeg, N. A. (2009). Education or incarceration: Zero tolerance policies and the school to

prison pipeline. In Forum on Public Policy online (Vol. 2009, No. 2). Oxford Round

Table. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ870076.pdf

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley.

Hurst, M. D. (2005). Safety check. Education Week, 24(33), 31–33.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ759494&site=ehost

-live&scope=site

Johnston, J., & Joy, A. (2016, August 4). ‘Media contagion’ is factor in mass shootings, study

says: Psychologist calls on media to withhold shooters’ names.

 33
 

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion. doi:

10.1037/e510292016-001

Kang-Brown, J., Trone, J., Fratello, J., & Daftary-Kapur, T. (2013, December). A generation

later: What we’ve learned about zero tolerance in schools (Issue Brief December 2013).

Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Youth Justice. https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-

web-assets/downloads/Publications/a-generation-later-what-weve-learned-about-zero-

tolerance-in-schools/legacy_downloads/zero-tolerance-in-schools-policy-brief.pdf

Katsiyannis, A., Whitford, D. K., & Ennis, R. P. (2018). Historical examination of United States

intentional mass school shootings in the 20th and 21st centuries: Implications for

students, schools, and society. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(8), 2562–2573.

doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1096-2

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.

Krisberg, B., Hartney, C., Wolf, A., & Silva, S. (2009). Youth violence myths and realities.

National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Kupchik, A., & Bracy, N. L. (2009). The news media on school crime and violence:

Constructing dangerousness and fueling fear. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(2),

136–155. doi: 10.1177/1541204008328800

Lankford, A., & Madfis, E. (2018). Don’t name them, don’t show them, but report everything

else: A pragmatic proposal for denying mass killers the attention they seek and deterring

future offenders. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(2), 260–279. doi:

10.1177/0002764217730854

Larkin, R. W. (2009). The Columbine legacy: Rampage shootings as political acts. American

Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1309–1326. doi: 10.1177/0002764209332548

 34
 

Lindstrom Johnson, S., Waasdorp, T. E., Cash, A. H., Debnam, K. J., Milam, A. J., & Bradshaw,

C. P. (2017). Assessing the association between observed school disorganization and

school violence: Implications for school climate interventions. Psychology of Violence,

7(2), 181–191. doi: 10.1037/vio0000045

Macnamara, J. R. (2005). Media content analysis: Its uses, benefits and best practice

methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1–34.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267387325_Media_Content_Analysis_Its_Uses

_Benefits_and_Best_Practice_Methodology

Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A critical review of the punitive paradigm

shift. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33(1), 15–24. doi: 10.1007/s10560-015-

0397-1

Mayer, M. J., & Jimerson, S. R. (2019). The importance of school safety and violence

prevention. In M. J. Mayer & S. R. Jimerson (Eds.), School safety and violence

prevention: Science, practice, policy (pp. 1–16). American Psychological Association.

doi: 10.1037/0000106-001

Meyers, J. R., & Schmidt, F. (2008). Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment for

Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) with juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior,

35(3), 344–355. doi: 10.1177/0093854807311972

Miller, K. S., Potter, G. W., & Kappeler, V. E. (2006). The myth of the juvenile superpredator. In

B. Sims & B. Preston (Eds.), The handbook of juvenile justice: Theory and practice (pp.

173–192). Routledge.
 35
 

Mills, A. J., & O'Connell, C. J. (2003). Making sense of bad news: The media, sensemaking, and

organizational crisis. Canadian Journal of Communication, 28(3), 323–339. doi:

10.22230/cjc.2003v28n3a1374

Modzeleski, W., & Randazzo, M. R. (2018). School threat assessment in the USA: Lessons

learned from 15 years of teaching and using the federal model to prevent school

shootings. Contemporary School Psychology, 22(2), 109–115. doi: 10.1007/s40688-018-

0188-8

Morford, M., & Ferguson, M. (2018). The case of the Zodiac Killer. Wildblue Press.

Muschert, G. W. (2007). The Columbine victims and the myth of the juvenile superpredator.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(4), 351–366. doi: 10.1177/1541204006296173

Muschert, G. W. (2019). Afterword: The Columbine effect on culture, policy, and me. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35(3), 357–372.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219840238

Nance, J. P. (2016). Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline: Tools for change. Arizona State

Law Journal, 48, 313–372.

https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&

httpsredir=1&article=1783&context=facultypub

National Consortium on Violence Research. (1998). Violence in the schools. Carnegie Mellon

University.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781071802878

Pavelka, J. (2014). The factors affecting the presentation of events and the media coverage of

topics in the mass media. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 623–629. doi:

10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.482
 36
 

Riedman, D., & O’Neill, D. (2020). CHDS – K–12 School Shooting Database Center for

Homeland Defense and Security. https://www.chds.us/ssdb/

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Fico, F., & Watson, B. (2019). Analyzing media messages: Using

quantitative content analysis in research. Routledge.

Robers, S., Zhang, J., & Truman, J. (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2011. Institute

of Education Services, National Center for Education Statistics. doi:

10.1037/e541412012-001

Rocque, M., & Snellings, Q. (2018). The new disciplinology: Research, theory, and remaining

puzzles on the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, 3–11. doi:

10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.05.002

Schildkraut, J., Elsass, H. J., & Meredith, K. (2018). Mass shootings and the media: Why all

events are not created equal. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(3), 223–243. doi:

10.1080/0735648X.2017.1284689

Schildkraut, J., & Muschert, G. W. (2013). Violent media, guns, and mental illness: The three

ring circus of causal factors for school massacres, as related in media discourse. Fast

Capitalism, 10(1), 159–172. doi:10.32855/fcapital.201301.015

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2000). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Stephens, R. D. (1998). Checklist of characteristics of youth who have caused school-associated

violent deaths. The National School Safety Center.

Wenzl, R., Potter, T., Kelly, L., & Laviana, H. (2009). Bind, torture, kill: The inside story of the

serial killer next door. HarperCollins.

 37
 

Verlinden, S., Hersen, M., & Thomas, J. (2000). Risk factors in school shootings. Clinical

Psychology Review, 20(1), 3–56. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00055-0

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news

online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151.

Young, C., Simmons, H., & Stewart, M. (2019, March 11–13). Social listening during crises: A

practitioner guide for crisis communication on social media. Proceedings of the

International Crisis and Risk Communications Conference, Orlando, FL, United States.

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=icrcc. doi:

10.30658/icrcc.2019.11
 38
 

APPENDIX A

Coding Book

Coder____________ Title________________________________ Initial or Recode? (circle one)

TV Station____________ Air Date_____________________ Word Count__________________

Individual/Perpetrator Mentioned in Article?

1. Brought a Weapon to School No Yes
2. Has Made a Detailed Plan to Attack/Hurt Others No Yes
3. Suicidal Ideation/Attempts/Completion No Yes
4. Animal Cruelty No Yes
5. Violent Drawings/Writing – Including Online No Yes
6. Medical/Physical Condition No Yes
7. Impulsivity/Hyperactivity No Yes
8. Psychological/Psychiatric Conditions No Yes
9. History of Aggression/ Difficult Temperament/History of Threatening No Yes
Others
10. Substance Abuse No Yes
11. Attitudes/Beliefs No Yes
12. Criminal Record/Discipline Problems No Yes
13. Motive for Attack No Yes
14. Gender No Yes
15. Age No Yes
16. Race No Yes
Additional Comments:

Family Mentioned in Article?

17. Poor Supervision/Monitoring No Yes
18. Exposure to Family Violence/ Antisocial or Violent Parents No Yes
19. Child Abuse/Neglect No Yes
20. Parental Substance Abuse No Yes
 39
 
21. Marital Conflict/Divorce No Yes
22. Family Conflict No Yes
Additional Comments:

School/Peers Mentioned in Article?

23. Antisocial/Violent Peer Group No Yes
24. Low School Commitment or Achievement/Academic Failure No Yes
25. Gang Involvement No Yes
26. Social Isolation/Peer Rejection No Yes
27. Feels Bullied or Persecuted No Yes
Comments:

Societal/Environmental Mentioned in Article?

28. Social-Economic Status No Yes
29. Exposure to Violent Media/Violent Culture No Yes
30. Easy Access to Weapons No Yes
Additional Comments:
 40
 

APPENDIX B

Media Content-Frame Analysis Flowchart

NOTE: This flowchart is adapted from Macnamara (2005), Giles and Shaw (2009), and
Neuendorf (2016).

Theory and rationale:

- What event will be Conceptual decisions:
examined? - What variables will you explore?
- Exploration of possible - Preliminary identification of
theories main categories and
- Review of Literature subcategories
- Aims and rationale of study

Creation of code book/form/instrument using MFA process:

1. Code word to guide database search
2. Origin point – or main event under study
3. Narrowing of search results using timeframe
4. Identification of audience (e.g., narrowing of search
results by national TV stations)
5. Identification of main characters and their characteristics
(e.g., youth violence risk factors)

Training and reliability checks:

‐ Coders work together to become Final work through of data:
familiar and agree on coding ‐ At least two coders will work
variables/categories. independently of one another.
‐ Coders then work independently ‐ Coders will meet together
on at least 10% of identical throughout coding process for
articles to establish intercoder reliability checks and make
reliability code book revisions.
‐ Calculate final reliability figure
(percent agreement of at least
80%).
‐ Revise code book as needed.

Results and Reporting:

‐ What did the coding reveal?
‐ Is your hypothesis supported?
‐ What are the implications?
‐ How will you report the data?